Evolution - A serious question.

[One Brow]

If the mutations that led to new functional attributes and to new species are random what is the evidence that they are?

There are a variety of mutational mechanisms (point replacement, cutting out a string, duplication, transverse insertion, etc.). None of them are directed byh the organism in any way we can detect, so we take them as being random, absent evidence otherwise.

As you say, the progression from simple organism to more complex organisms look like a deliberate/reactionary progress, so what evidence leads you to believe it isn't?

It is reactionary, but fueled by random mutations.

 

[One Brow]

Where is the evidence for all these undesirable mutations?

You mean, like the inability of primates to create vitamin C, based on a deletion mutation in a gene that produces vitamin C for almost every other animal?

 

[Agoxlea]

What is the possibility that the great apes are not related but because it is such a successful model that very different species are converging rather than diverging from a common ancestor?

Not possible, but that does happen pretty often. Here is a list of examples of convergent evolution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_examples_of_convergent_evolution

 

[PearlWatson]

With the inherent efficiency of splitting to reproduce, when and how did it diverge into sexual reproduction? Wouldn't the single-celled organisms that lost the ability to reproduce via splitting simply die? What advantage is there in sexual reproduction vs aesexual reproduction?

It would have to do it by random mutation to fit Darwin's theory of evolution and the chances for that are nil.

 

[PearlWatson]

I mean theories.

So you included snow to say that both theories are as certain/factual as snow?
Sorry to tell you but not all theories are created equal.
The theory of gravity has a testable hypothesis making it a scientific theory. The "theory" of evolution doesn't have a testable hypothesis, and I'll be generous and say that is mostly because of the time factor. The supposed "theory" is speculation. It is a non-disprovable pseudoscience, like astrology.

Do you even know what a mutation is?

Yup. The fossil record doesn't show the vast quantities of hapless creatures that ought to have died out in the survival-of-the-fittest regime.

 

[PearlWatson]

The selection of mutations is reactionary, and the selection is not random.

So creatures randomly mutated attributes that they just happened to need at the time. Absurd.

 

[The-Joker]

So you included snow to say that both theories are as certain/factual as snow?
Sorry to tell you but not all theories are created equal.
The theory of gravity has a testable hypothesis making it a scientific theory. The "theory" of evolution doesn't have a testable hypothesis, and I'll be generous and say that is mostly because of the time factor. The supposed "theory" is speculation. It is a non-disprovable pseudoscience, like astrology.

False, evolution in bacteria and singled celled organisms... is hypothesized, observed, and recorded all the time. It's even manipulated.


Yup. The fossil record doesn't show the vast quantities of hapless creatures that ought to have died out in the survival-of-the-fittest regime.

Evolution isn't a survival of the fittest regime, so that would make sense. Evolution isn't the biggest, strongest, fastest survive... evolution is those that respond best to change survive.



LOL, you just called evolution a pseudoscience... that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

 

[The-Joker]

So creatures randomly mutated attributes that they just happened to need at the time. Absurd.

No, some did... all the others died. Again you seem to be referring to random mutation as a single roll of the die, random mutation to be beneficial takes a countless number of rolls to get it right.

 

[PearlWatson]

Undesirable mutations don't survive, it's like the difference between being born with a 12 inch ***** and being born with a ***** on your forehead... if you're wondering where the guy with the ***** on his forehead is? He didn't reproduce.

So the first weener to appear was based on one mutation? Why would a creature that didn't need a weener to reproduce before suddenly find use for a weener. The female would have to have randomly mutated a ****** and all the other sexual organs for that weener to be of any use at all besides to play with.

Here's the intro to Bio summation

You have a thing in biology called DNA, DNA is made up of base pairs, base pairs are classified by 4 letters (ATCG) based on the molecule in the base pair. You literally have billions (maybe even a trillion) base pairs made up of those 4 molecules, which form a double helix called DNA, which forms chromatids which form chromosones, which are the genetic makeup of cells. Mutation occurs in about 1 in a million base pairs, but when you add it all up it occurs a lot in just one person's replication of DNA. Most base pairs are dormant and are leftovers from evolution and don't do anything, but the few that do, control anything from alcoholism to skin pigment to cancer (that's right evolution explains cancer)... some base pairs when mutated will kill you, others will make you Lebron James (the proof is Lebron James). This is science, I have observed it with my own eyes as a 1st year Biology student.

Its hard to document mutation because it occurs on such a large scale, but we do know of the existence of mutation and what it can do (kill you). We can usually even mark on which chromosome and where the mutation is (given controlled and uncontrolled variables).

DNA is the whole design part.

 

[PearlWatson]

Evolution isn't a survival of the fittest regime, so that would make sense. Evolution isn't the biggest, strongest, fastest survive... evolution is those that respond best to change survive.
LOL, you just called evolution a pseudoscience... that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

It is a circular argument.
The fittest survive.
Who are the "fittest?"
The ones who survive. See it happens every time!

 

[PearlWatson]

False, evolution in bacteria and singled celled organisms... is hypothesized, observed, and recorded all the time. It's even manipulated.

Evolution is not the capacity of bacteria to develop antibiotic resistance, but which never evolves into anything more than bacteria. In fact evolution is not adaptive characteristics developing within a species at all. Darwin's theory says we get a whole new species not a taller version of the same species.

 

[PearlWatson]

No, some did... all the others died. Again you seem to be referring to random mutation as a single roll of the die, random mutation to be beneficial takes a countless number of rolls to get it right.

So, you are saying that mutations are done by gradual steps...of surviving organisms...but the fossil record doesn't show gradual steps.